The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of a mistake of facts is merely a fact that he had a fighting flag, etc. in order to stop the fighting between the defendant's daily behavior and the defendant's daily behavior, and did not throw away things towards the person.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, as shown in the judgment below, the defendant conspired with E, F, and G several times in collusion with the victim, such as beer's disease, glass cups, and tacts, which are dangerous goods, and continued to go away from the victim, and the f has been engaged in drinking, smelling, smelling, etc., which are dangerous goods to the victim, and the e has been engaged in drinking, which is dangerous goods to the victim. The e has a kitchen knick, which is a dangerous article, and E has sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim could not know the number of days of treatment to the victim. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. The circumstances in which the defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment in Korea, and the victim did not want the punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim have already been sufficiently reflected in the sentencing of the lower court, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered in the new sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the statutory penalty for the crime of bodily injury with dangerous articles is limited to imprisonment of not less than three years, and the lower court has already lowered the lower limit of the punishment by applying the discretionary mitigation.

In addition, the records of this case, such as the degree of the criminal defendant's collusion, sentence imposed on some accomplices, age, character and conduct, environment, details and contents of the crime, and circumstances after the crime is committed.